Integrated Marketing

Communication
Integrated Marketing
Communication:

Putting the Human Person

at the Core

By

Jerry G. Kliatchko
Integrated Marketing Communication:
Putting the Human Person at the Core

By Jerry G. Kliatchko

This book first published 2020

Cambridge Scholars Publishing

Lady Stephenson Library, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE6 2PA, UK

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

Copyright © 2020 by Jerry G. Kliatchko

All rights for this book reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced,
stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means,
electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without
the prior permission of the copyright owner.

ISBN (10): 1-5275-4104-5

ISBN (13): 978-1-5275-4104-7
 To my dearest mom Aleli and my dad Jake
My brother Jacobson, and my sisters Anne, Mariel, Lala, and Nessie
My in-laws Monette, Jebe, Ariel
My nephews Karl, Angelo, Jacob (Chem), Nicky, Jacob (Coby), Jay,
Jacob, Joseph, Jaime, Juanma, Joaqui, and Julian
My nieces Annica, Mariela, Sophia, Zhanna, Mia, Zhavelle
and our most adorable and loveliest baby, Ava Grace!
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Foreword ................................................................................................... ix
Don E. Schultz, Ph.D.

Introduction ................................................................................................ 1

Chapter 1 .................................................................................................... 3
Towards a New Definition of Integrated Marketing Communication

Chapter 2 .................................................................................................. 33
Revisiting the IMC Construct: A Revised Definition and Four Pillars

Chapter 3 .................................................................................................. 63
The Primacy of the Consumer in IMC: Espousing a Personalist View
and Ethical Implications

Chapter 4 .................................................................................................. 91
Twenty Years of IMC: A Study of CEO and CMO Perspectives
in the Asia Pacific Region
Jerry G. Kliatchko and Don E. Schultz

Chapter 5 ................................................................................................ 113

Preparing an IMC Plan: The IMC Planning Process
 FOREWORD

DON E. SCHULTZ, PH.D.

GLOBAL FATHER OF IMC
PROFESSOR EMERITUS, NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY, USA

IMC: More Than Ever, Integration Is All About People

In the 1980s/1990s, when IMC first began evolving at Northwestern
University, the two most radical conceptual features of the approach, when
compared to other existing forms of commercial marketing communication
at that time were: (a) IMC was about starting with the needs and interests of
the customers or audiences for the communication, not with the
goals/objectives of the seller for his or her product/service, and, (b) the
communication focus was to be on sharing created value and building
relationships. It was to be all about generating reciprocity between those
two communication parties. Inherent in and underlying these concepts was
the premise that IMC was about connecting people at all levels and in all
areas, i.e., buyers and sellers, distributors and consumers, media and
audiences and all the other connections and relationships that occur in the
marketplaces around the world. IMC, while it had its genesis in advertising
and promotion, was based on the larger system of people interacting and
exchanging ideas, values and cultures in an interlocking and ever evolving
system.

Clearly, IMC was different from the then existing forms of marketing
communication that had developed earlier. For example, traditional
advertising was based on persuasion, i.e., the seller trying to influence the
buyer to take some favorable action on his or her behalf as a result of media
exposures. Other forms of marketing communication followed along the
same line. Sales promotion focused on price cuts, discounts and special
offers to encourage consumers to act or react during specific time periods.
Direct marketing was all about targeted direct selling through supposedly
laser-focused offers to previously identified and selected audiences. Public
relations were focused on influencing the media to provide further support
for the seller’s planned merchandising activities, i.e., get editorial or journalistic
support for various products or organisations. Even the internet/interactive
x Foreword

systems, darlings of the 1970s were simply the seller using technology to
get messages out and responses back from prospective buyers with less
interference and more speed. In short, the entire marketing communications
system was tilted in favor of the seller who controlled when and where
messages and incentives would be distributed and to whom and received
most of the benefits from those interactions.

As a result, in every marketing communication situation until that point, the

focus of the tool or tactic was on the products/services to be sold, the
channels through which the products and services were to be offered, the
price or the discount off the original price that the buyer might obtain. Most
of those offers were delivered free or at no cost to the audience, i.e., they
were subsidised by the advertiser. Thus, most of our media systems which
were supposed to educate, enlighten and amuse the audiences were
essentially paid propaganda channels for the seller who had a vested interest
in recouping his/her investment in the shortest time possible.

The most important factor was that all these activities were outbound, using
systems developed, directed and distributed by or for the seller. The buyer
was simply the end point who had the resources the seller was trying to
acquire. Put simply, the marketer’s goal was to make a sale and move on.
That was the marketing communication mantra at the time of the
development of IMC and it dominated all the thought, planning and
execution in the marketplace.

And, the system worked. Successfully. In many cases, very successfully.

And, it was still working when the IMC concept was developed. That was
one of the reasons many marketers and communicators saw no reason for
IMC. Why challenge or change a system which was still vibrant and in some
cases, still growing?

There were external force(s) on the horizon, however, which would

challenge these traditional forms of marketing communication. Many of
them were all technology-focused and data driven, using tools and
techniques which most marketing communicators knew little about and
thus, simply avoided.

The first inklings of change came when marketers began to shift their focus
from traditional longer-term media advertising to more short-term oriented
activities such as sales promotion, direct marketing, public relations and the
like. That separation of long-term and short-term results raised the first
questions of integration which was how was the marketer to focus and fit
 Integrated Marketing Communication xi

these new communication tools, techniques and tactics together? In short,

how could the seller integrate all of his or her activities into a coherent
whole? Thus the concept of integration or IMC was born in the late 1980s
and was based on trying to reorganise a rapidly changing marketing
communications landscape.

Jerry Kliatchko first encountered IMC during his graduate studies at the
University of Navarre in Spain. He recognised early on that integration and
a holistic marketplace were the future. Since that time, he has been a leading
proponent of the discipline and one of the global IMC thought leaders.
Today, from his present position as Dean of the IMC program in the School
of Communication at the University of Asia and The Pacific in Manila, Jerry
has developed IMC not just in the South Pacific and East Asia regions but
around the world through his research, teaching and leadership for more
than 20 years.

In this seminal text, Dean Kliatchko provides the foundation for fulfilling
the IMC promise, that is, seeing the human person as a whole, not just as a
consumer or customer. That next level, as you will see in this text, is
basically the next step in a total IMC process. It is an extension and
refinement of the work he started more than 20 years ago. Start with the
customer and develop marketing communications to fit them and their
needs.

The first four chapters of this text show clearly how and why Kliatchko has
made that journey. It demonstrates his journey to this point. It provides solid
evidence that his clear thinking and organised critical planning have evolved
over the years and now encompass the entire human system.

One thing you will note in this text is the heavy emphasis placed on
developing a solid base for IMC, that is a clear, coherent definition of the
concept and the boundaries within which it operates. It is the solid
foundation for IMC that has continued to evolve over time but it has never
wavered from Kliatchko’ s belief that the customer is the base of all IMC-
based development and execution.

What you will observe as you read this text is the evolving nature of
Kliatchko’s premise. He clearly observes the singular nature of the
consumer/customer and how that concept has evolved over time. To deal
with that “human persona”, he has developed a very complete approach on
how to plan and implement an IMC program in the 21st century. It is robust.
xii Foreword

It is complete. It is detailed. But, most of all, it is comprehensive. Nothing

is left to chance. No areas are short-changed.

This text truly is IMC for the 21st century. Follow the thinking and the
guidance that Jerry Kliatchko provides you here and you will get the true
meaning of Integrated Marketing Communication. And, you will
understand why and how marketing communication must change and
change for the good……for the good of the planner, for the good of the
marketer but most of all, for the good of the “human person at the core”.
 INTRODUCTION

Integrated Marketing Communication: The Human Person at the Core is a

collection of four of my past academic articles (chapters 1 to 4) on the
subject of integrated marketing communication (IMC) published in peer
reviewed academic journals. They are reprinted here with permission from
the International Journal of Advertising and the Journal of Marketing
Communications. The last chapter (chapter 5) on the IMC Planning
Framework is a new piece written specifically for this book. The first four
chapters deal with the theoretical foundations of IMC while the last chapter
focuses on the “how to” or the practical application of IMC through the
framework presented. This book may serve as a helpful resource for
students and researchers who are interested in the field of IMC.

The title of this book gives emphasis on the human person. At the core of
IMC is the consumer – the starting point and constant reference point from
which every element of the IMC plan pivots. But the consumer is not just a
number, a target, a user of a brand, a buyer, or a source of revenue and profit.
Obvious as it may seem – but at times neglected and overlooked – the
consumer, customer, or prospect is above all a human person, free and
intelligent, whose inherent dignity and worth, well-being, development, and
yes even spirituality, must be upheld, respected, and nurtured at all times,
in business, economic, social, and political activities. And this is especially
true for marketing communication. In this era of continuous disruptive
technological growth – VR, AR, AI, robots, data science, big data engineering,
and so on – there is an even greater need to be firmly grounded on being
human. Marketers must view and treat consumers and audiences as people
at every step of the way, in developing and implementing marketing
campaigns. This integral view of the consumer as a human person is yet
another dimension of integration, one that provides deeper, more holistic,
and richer insights into the various facets of a consumer’s life.

The past decade has seen a rising global trend and interest in marketing and
advertising for social good, enabling brands to act as catalysts for change
and uplift lives of people and societies around the world. Brands have
become “more human,” so to speak, more meaningful, more purposeful, in
their marketing communication efforts. Consumers today have also become
2 Introduction

more critical and discerning than ever, more demanding, and only show
support for brands that stand for something relevant in their lives. Moreover,
almost every advertising award show everywhere in the world today gives
recognition to campaigns that change the world for the better and do good.
In this regard, the Asia Pacific Tambuli Awards, an award recognising
creative and effective brands with purpose, organised by the School of
Communication of the University of Asia and the Pacific (UA&P) was said
to be ahead of its time, when the awards launched in 2005, way before the
global trend on advertising for good came into being.

Marketing communication has always been, and will always be about

people – understanding them, providing solutions for their needs, and
improving their lives for the better. Only when the human person is placed
at the core will marketing communication be truly relevant and effective.
 CHAPTER 11

TOWARDS A NEW DEFINITION OF INTEGRATED

MARKETING COMMUNICATION (IMC)

Since the inception and formal conceptualisation of Integrated Marketing

Communication (IMC) in the late 1980s, the concept continues to gain
widespread attention and interest among academics and practitioners around
the world. However, a review of the literature on IMC over the past decade
suggests that contentions on definitional and theoretical issues still remain
unsettled. IMC proponents acknowledge and recommend that more
extensive research in the field is needed to further consolidate its theoretical
foundations. In this article, some IMC definitions are reviewed and analysed
by examining their merits as well as inadequacies. A new definition of the
concept is then proposed, suggesting three distinctive attributes, or pillars,
of IMC as a contribution to the theory building on IMC.

Background
More than a decade after its inception as a concept of marketing
communications, Integrated Marketing Communications (IMC) is still
subject to varying terminology, bearing names such as “new advertising”,
“orchestration”, “360 branding”, “total branding”, “whole egg”, “seamless
communication”, “relationship marketing”, “one-to-one marketing”,
“integrated marketing” and “integrated communications” (Kliatchko 2002).
But no matter what it is called, this new approach to business and marketing
communications planning has become an irreversible prevailing tendency
among academics and industry practitioners.

Rather than being considered as a revolution in marketing thought, IMC

emerged as a natural evolution in marketing communications, brought about
by drastic changes in at least three main areas: the market-place, media and

1 Originally published in the International Journal of Advertising, 24(1), pp. 7–34.

Jerry Kliatchko (2005) Towards a new definition of Integrated Marketing
Communications (IMC), DOI: 10.1080/02650487.2005.11072902
4 Chapter 1

communications, and consumers. These changes have been driven primarily

by advances in information technology, and have caused a major shift from
the mass marketing, product-centred theories of marketing popularised in
the 1950s and 1960s, to the more customer-centric, database-driven, interactive
and measurable approaches of integrated marketing communications (Schultz
2003a). Schultz and Kitchen (2000a) opine that four elements impel the
changes in today’s marketplace and, therefore, the practice of marketing and
marketing communications – digitalisation, information technology,
intellectual property and communication systems.

Clearly, the methods, practices and ways of thinking about marketing and
communications prevalent in the era of mass marketing and mass
communication have given way to the new realities affecting the
marketplace and communications landscape of the twenty-first century
(McKenna 1988, 1991, 1997; Achrol 1991; Clancy & Shulman 1991;
Webster 1992; Tedlow & Jones 1993; Blattberg et al. 1994; Hunt 1994;
Lazer et al. 1994; Reitman 1994; Schultz et al. 1996; Newell 1997; Peppers
& Rogers 1997, 1999a, 1999b; Pavlik 1998; Zyman 1999; Schultz &
Kitchen 2000a; Schultz 2003a, 2003b).

A review of the IMC literature shows that, for the most part, authors and
scholars in the field of marketing communications have not reached an
agreement on the general concept and scope of IMC. Kitchen and Schultz
(1999) claim that since the early 1990s, with the exception of the US, there
has been little progress in understanding IMC beyond the “one-sight”, “one
sound” view. Over the past decade, various scholars have examined the
many facets surrounding the IMC concept as demonstrated in the following
citations.

Duncan and Everett (1993) claimed that since IMC is both a concept and a
process, there is difficulty in arriving at a definition of IMC.

Nowak and Phelps (1994, p. 51) observed three broad concepts of IMC,
which were mainly found in practitioner-based literature. The first was the
“one voice” concept where integration was seen as having a “clear and
consistent image, position, message and/or theme, across all marketing
communication disciplines or tools”. Second was the “integrated” marketing
communications concept, which focused particularly on advertisements that
not only strengthened brand image but also influenced consumer behaviour.
The third was the “coordinated” marketing communications concept, which
emphasised the coordination among the various marketing communications
tools, such as advertising, sales promotion and public relations, with the aim
 Towards a New Definition of Integrated Marketing Communication 5

of producing holistic communications campaigns.

Brown (1997) also enumerated several other views reflected in the IMC
literature on what IMC is or should be: “attitude of mind”, “one spirit”, “one
strategy”, “synergy”, “equal status”, “merging disciplines”, “stakeholder
emphasis” and “marketing orientation”.

Beard (1997) argued that aside from a lack of agreement on IMC definitions,
the issue of viewing IMC as both a concept and a process is also unsettled.
Nevertheless, he singled out two principles of IMC that have appeared
consistently in his review of the literature: “campaign messages designed to
speak with one voice” and “campaign messages attempting to elicit a
measurable, behavioural consumer response”.

Eagle et al. (1999), in a study among marketers and ad agency executives

in New Zealand, tackled among other issues the “new” versus “nothing
new” paradigms in relation to the IMC concept. One of their conclusions is
that IMC is not just a management fad but is in fact a fundamental change
in the practice and perception of marketing and communications among
advertising agencies and clients.

IMC literature: different voices

In 1991, Northwestern University, in cooperation with the American
Association of Advertising Agencies (4As) and the Association of National
Advertisers in the United States, conducted the first national survey among
consumer goods advertisers on the subject of IMC (Caywood & Ewing
1991). The study sought to understand the concept of IMC, to examine the
extent to which IMC is being practised by major US advertisers, and to
understand the importance and value of traditional advertising agencies in a
marketplace where IMC has grown in importance.

This initial study on the understanding and practice of IMC was followed
by several others, not only within the USA (Duncan & Everett 1993;
McArthur & Griffin 1997; Schultz & Kitchen 1997; Gould et al. 1999) but
also across cultures including, among others: New Zealand (Eagle et al.
1999); a multi-country study from the UK, USA, New Zealand, Australia
and India (Kitchen & Schultz 1999); Thailand (Anantachart 2001); South
Africa (Kallmeyer & Abratt 2001); the Philippines (Kliatchko 2002); and
Australia (Reid 2003).
6 Chapter 1

Cornelissen and Lock (2000) and Cornelissen (2001), however, seem to

uphold the contrary opinion and have revisited the issue on the validity of
the IMC concept. They suggest that IMC is but one more among many
management fashions propagated by so-called gurus and that it is
theoretically underdeveloped and ambiguously defined. Schultz and
Kitchen (2000b) rebut such claims and explain that IMC is still in a “pre-
paradigm stage of development” and that its value will become more
evident as further research and experience are obtained through the years.

Kliatchko (2002) opines that IMC may be considered “conceptually old but
operationally new”. It is conceptually old insofar as two fundamental
principles surrounding the IMC concept are concerned, which are neither
new nor exclusive to it: the principle of integration or coordination itself,
and consumer orientation. It is, however, operationally new because
technology today has made it possible for marketers to put integration and
customer focus into actual practice and not merely pay lip-service to them.

Phelps and Johnson (1996) explained the difficulty of identifying which

IMC measures to use when assessing research studies on IMC application
in organisations, due to the lack of a clear understanding of the IMC
concept.

Hutton (1996) posited that IMC can help redefine the purpose of marketing
communications towards a more humanistic approach to marketing
relationships.

Hartley and Pickton (1999) introduced what they call the mindscape of
marketing communications. This “mindscape”, composed of corporate
communications management, marketing communications management,
and consumer contact management, refers to the various activities in the
marketing communications mix that allow for a way of thinking towards
making the various elements work together.

Issues affecting the organisational integration between agencies and clients

and its role in effectively implementing IMC programmes have also been
examined by Gould et al. (1999).

An important milestone in the conceptual development of IMC was

introduced by Schultz and Schultz (1998), where they proposed a shift in
focus from marketing communication tactics and operations to viewing
IMC as a “business process”. This perspective, they believe, covers the
present as well as the future scope of IMC as it has developed through the
years.
 Towards a New Definition of Integrated Marketing Communication 7

In addition, Schultz (2003b) advocates what he calls the “next generation

IMC”, a concept that addresses the new requirements of consumer-focused
organisations in the new marketplace, involving the acquisition, maintenance,
growth and migration of customer groups, and their income flows over time.

Peltier et al. (2003) highlight the growing importance and potential of the
interactive nature of the new media and its role in generating interaction
with customers through the “Interactive IMC” approach they propose.

Issues on the measurability of IMC programmes have also been a focus of

discussion among academics and practitioners since the early stages of the
development of the IMC concept. Jeans (1998) highlighted that, in a
workshop organised by the Institute of Practitioners in Advertising, the
delegates underscored the importance of integration and its direct relation
to market share. There were concerns, however, about whether the effects
of integration can be quantified and how it can actually be achieved.

A study conducted by Low (2000) showed that implementing IMC may be

strongly related to better marketing results in terms of sales, market share
and profits for an organisation. More recently, Schultz (2003a) provided an
overview of the developments in IMC thinking through the years, including
the growing demands for marketing and marketing communications
managers to be accountable for marketing communications investments.
Schultz and Grindem (2002) also proposed the appointment of a chief
performance officer (CPO) in organisations to directly oversee the efficient
implementation of brand communication programmes to boost sales, market
share and profit margins, among other things.

Despite the lack of agreement on the definition of IMC even up to the

present (Dipasquale 2002), and the varying opinions on the understanding
and practice of it, the study conducted by Kitchen and Schultz (1999) shows
that both academicians and practitioners regard IMC as the major
communications development of recent history. In fact, research studies on
IMC since the early 1990s to the present show that industry practitioners
continue to see the value and benefits of an integrated approach to marketing
communications.

As shown in various studies (Duncan & Everett 1993; Schultz & Kitchen
1997; Kitchen & Schultz 1999; Anantachart 2001; Kliatchko 2002;
Spickett-Jones et al. 2003), among the benefits brought about by IMC are:
the reduction of media waste and a more positive effect on client budgets;
improved coordination, centralisation and greater consistency of marketing
8 Chapter 1

communication programmes (Duncan & Everett 1993; Moriarty 1994;

Schultz & Kitchen 1997; Schultz & Schultz 1998; Kitchen & Schultz 1999;
Anantachart 2001; Kliatchko 2002); and increased message impact and
creativity, flowing from a focused and well-defined strategy (Schultz &
Kitchen 1997; Kitchen & Schultz 1999; Anantachart 2001, 2003; Maskulka
et al. 2003; Spickett-Jones et al. 2003).

The advancements in technology have also benefited IMC in a very crucial

way. Not only has technology provided new and innovative channels of
communication, it has also made the availability, development and
management of databases an indispensable tool in managing customers
today (Schultz & Schultz 1998). A most important advantage of the IMC
approach is greater focus on more specific and well-defined target markets
(Schultz & Kitchen 1997; Kitchen & Schultz 1999; Calder & Malthouse
2003). Because of technology, the IMC approach can more accurately
capture empirical behavioural data on consumers, employ valuation tools
and techniques, and differentiate customers beyond merely economic
criteria (Schultz & Schultz 1998).

Finally, the benefits of integrating the use of various marketing communications

disciplines, and in particular public relations, have also been discussed and
recommended by academics and practitioners (Moriarty 1994; Kitchen &
Moss 1995; Gronstedt 1996; Caywood 1997; Harris 1998; Hutton 1999).

Needed: a deeper understanding of IMC

As the previous citations indicate, it is not uncommon to encounter different
articulations of the definition, principles and applications of IMC. What is
immediately evident is that there is very little agreement on the concept.
Among the points of difference reflected in the review of the IMC literature,
the following may be identified:

• disagreements on the definitional issues and scope of IMC

• difficulties arising from the view that IMC is both a concept and a
process
• contentions on whether IMC is merely a fad or a management
fashion
• debate over measurement methods used in evaluating IMC
programmes.
• controversy over turf battles and on who leads the integration process
• conflicts on agency–client relationships, organisational structures
and compensation issues.
 Towards a New Definition of Integrated Marketing Communication 9

Furthermore, much of what has been written about IMC so far has focused
more on the elements, tactics, tools, procedures and applications of IMC,
and on the various advantages and opportunities it can bring to an
organisation.

There remains, however, a vast area of research that has to be undertaken in

attempting to formalise and build an IMC theory. The emphasis of most
works has clearly been placed on the practice and implementation of IMC.
While its application is of great interest, especially to marketing and
marketing communications professionals, it is nonetheless primordial to
reach a theoretical understanding of the general concept of IMC before
further emphasis is placed on how it is developed, applied, implemented and
evaluated.

Even if the emphasis of most studies has been placed on the application of
IMC, there still remains a dearth of research that could ascertain the extent
and depth to which IMC is actually practised in organisations. To date, a
few cases on actual brands may be cited, such as Saturn, Xerox, Federal
Express, Hewlett-Packard (Gronstedt 2000) and Tylenol of Johnson &
Johnson (Deighton 1996). Even in these cases, IMC has not been applied as
extensively at all levels of implementation, as described by Schultz and
Schultz (1998) in their analysis of IMC application.

Finally, Schultz and Kitchen (1997) also affirmed in an exploratory study

of IMC in US advertising agencies that the literature on IMC to date has
focused largely on applying it rather than on understanding its basic
principles and theories. They concluded that theory building on IMC, and
the development of a more relevant and acceptable IMC definition, are
crucial for furthering the growth and practice of IMC in organisations.

A look into the definitions of Integrated Marketing

Communications
Five definitions of Integrated Marketing Communications are presented and
briefly discussed in this chapter. These definitions were selected on the basis
of their apparent acceptability among academicians and practitioners who
have done exploratory work on IMC, as reflected in the various citations
and references contained in their works. Three definitions come from the
pioneers of IMC from Northwestern University, such as Schultz, one
definition by Duncan, and the contributions by Nowak and Phelps.
10 Chapter 1

IMC definition by the American Association of Advertising

Agencies (1989)
The first formal definition of IMC was developed at Northwestern
University in 1989. This definition was used in a survey of major advertisers
and advertising agencies in the US, jointly sponsored by the American
Association of Advertising Agencies (4As), the Association of National
Advertisers, and Northwestern University (Schultz & Schultz 1998). A
review of the literature indicates that this 4As definition has been the most
widely used since 1989 up to the present, and the most often cited by
academics and practitioners, even if it has not been universally endorsed
(Duncan & Everett 1993; Nowak & Phelps 1994; Belch & Belch 1995;
Baldinger 1996; Duncan & Caywood 1996; Lloyd 1996; Petrison & Wang
1996; Phelps & Johnson 1996; Russell & Lane 1996; Beard 1997; Brown
1997; Caywood 1997; Shimp 1997; Burnett & Moriarty 1998; Grunig &
Grunig 1998; Harris 1998; Koekemoer 1998; Schultz & Schultz 1998; Sirgy
1998; Wells et al. 1998; Eagle et al. 1999; Gould et al. 1999; Kitchen &
Schultz 1999; Anantachart 2001; Kallmeyer & Abratt 2001; Peltier et al.
2003). This definition states that integrated marketing communications is:
A concept of marketing communications planning that recognizes the added
value of a comprehensive plan that evaluates the strategic roles of a variety
of communication disciplines – general advertising, direct response, sales
promotion, and public relations – and combines these disciplines to provide
clarity, consistency, and maximum communication impact. (Duncan &
Caywood 1996)

This definition emphasises the need for a synergistic marketing

communications plan that uses multiple tools of marketing communications
other than traditional advertising, and capitalises on the strengths of each,
with the goal of achieving maximum communication impact. It highlights
the importance of having one communications strategy or plan as the
unifying element and the integrative factor of the various tools or disciplines
employed, and of achieving greater synergy that would otherwise be absent
if the tools were to be used independently without supporting and
reinforcing each other (Brown 1997).

This definition further implies the creation of a “one spirit”, “one voice”,
“one look” effect by coordinating effectively the various disciplines at a
strategic level to achieve clarity and consistency of image in all messages
delivered through the various communication tools (Nowak & Phelps 1994;
Brown 1997). Moreover, it implies the creation of a “seamless” and
“classless” marketing communications field, where the walls that used to
 Towards a New Definition of Integrated Marketing Communication 11

separate the various tools are now broken down and where all communication
disciplines are elevated to have equal status without prejudice to any of the
tools. This in turn brings about the merging of these various disciplines to
work together effectively without losing the identity and the individual
differences and strengths of each discipline (Brown 1997).

The multi-country study on IMC among advertising executives conducted

by Kitchen and Schultz (1999), however, reveals that this definition presents
certain inadequacies. Respondents claim the definition lacked certain
elements, such as measurability and quantification analysis, drive for
results, consumer orientation, aspects of creativity, cost-effectiveness, cost-
efficiency and interactivity. Duncan and Caywood (1996) have also earlier
noted similar weaknesses of this definition, such as the exclusion of
consumers or prospects and how effectiveness might be achieved.

There are at least three major implications that may be deduced from the
limitations of this definition. First, the emphasis put on the advantages that
may be derived from employing a combination of a variety of
communication tools further accentuates the limited understanding and
prevailing notion among industry practitioners that IMC is concerned
merely with the effective use of multiple communication disciplines.
Second, the absence of references on consumers, prospects and other
relevant publics in the definition seems to ignore the centrality and due
importance placed by IMC on them, as the very essence that differentiates
traditional marketing approaches from IMC. The relevant public is at the
crux from which the whole IMC process and planning model emanates and
develops. Third, for IMC to be more widely accepted and practised,
measurement issues cannot be de-emphasised. The financial models and
valuation tools proposed by IMC scholars (e.g. Schultz & Walters 1997;
Schultz 1998; Schultz & Kitchen 2000a) ought to be explored and applied
more fully to further strengthen the potential of IMC programmes to drive
greater accountability and contribution to achieving business results.

Definition by Don Schultz, Northwestern University (1991)

Two years later, in 1991, Don Schultz and his colleagues at Northwestern
University proposed another definition of IMC. This definition states:
IMC is the process of managing all sources of information about a
product/service to which a customer or prospect is exposed which
behaviorally moves the consumer toward a sale and maintains customer
loyalty. (Duncan & Caywood 1996)
12 Chapter 1

This definition introduces other dimensions of IMC that had not been
articulated in the earlier definition. For example, Duncan and Caywood
(1996) opine that this definition focuses on the customer or prospect, which
is at the very heart of the IMC concept. There is also an implicit emphasis
placed on nurturing a relationship between the brand and the customer.
Moreover, it highlights the need for behavioural responses from customers
or prospects for an IMC campaign to be effective. Attention is likewise
given to “all sources of information” about a brand, which is no longer just
limited to advertising, public relations, and so on (those that can be
controlled and initiated by the organisation in coordination with its
communications agencies), but includes all possible contact points between
the brand and the consumer.

This definition, however, leaves out the fact that IMC is also a concept and
not just a process. It also seems to miss out the elements of strategic thinking
and measurability in the IMC planning process.

Definitions contributed by Tom Duncan (1992 and 1994)

Tom Duncan’s first definition was introduced in 1992 when he viewed
IMC as:
The strategic coordination of all messages and media used by an
organization to collectively influence its perceived brand value. (Duncan &
Caywood 1996)

This definition supports the view that IMC seeks to achieve a synergy
through the coordination of all messages and communications tools
employed by an organisation and its communication agencies. A study on
IMC conducted by Low (2000) used this definition by Duncan as a basis for
the interviews he conducted among 15 senior marketing managers in the
US. Having asked each interviewee to define IMC, he found that all 15
managers defined it as a management practice. His study also showed that
the most common element in the responses was the coordination of
marketing communication tools. Low claims that this finding further
supported his adoption of Duncan’s definition.

Duncan and Caywood (1996), however, posit that this definition limited the
messages and media used to those that the brand and its agencies sought to
deliver. Duncan then revised this definition in 1994 as follows:
IMC is the process of strategically controlling or influencing all messages
and encouraging purposeful dialogue to create and nourish profitable
 Towards a New Definition of Integrated Marketing Communication 13

relationships with customers and other stakeholders. (Duncan and Caywood

1996)

Duncan and Caywood (1996) explain that this revised definition focuses on
building relationships with all stakeholders and moved away from a merely
attitudinal to a behavioural change or response by saying that IMC “creates
and nourishes profitable relationships”. This has also expanded the concept
of the target market to include, aside from consumers and prospects, all
employees, regulators and other parties that may have a direct involvement
in the organisation. Moreover, this definition has placed considerable
emphasis on creating long-term effects by fostering customer relationships
and not merely creating short-term impact.

The inclusion of the phrase “controlling and influencing all messages” in

this definition, however, may be misconstrued. While control and influence
of messages are desirable and necessary, they may nevertheless mislead
others into the traditional marketing thinking that most, if not all, marketing
communications messages are under the control of marketers. As previously
cited by Duncan and Caywood (1996), this same concern was a major
consideration in revising Duncan’s 1992 definition. In this revised version,
however, the use of the term “control” may still imply a one-way viewpoint
of controlling only those messages that marketers sought to deliver. As
Schultz et al. (1996) point out, the outside-in perspective that IMC takes
highlights the fact that messages may be both controlled and uncontrolled,
and thereby requiring the management of both favourable and undesirable
communication coming from all possible sources, with some of it beyond
the control of marketers.

Another downside of this definition is its failure to mention or specify the

means or channels of communication to be employed in order to obtain the
goal of “encouraging purposeful dialogue”. While the channels may be
implied in the concept of “dialogue”, it seems appropriate to explicitly state
it in a definition. In contrast to the 4As definition cited earlier, which
highlights the variety of communication disciplines, the absence of any
reference to communication channels in Duncan’s definition downplays an
inherent concept in IMC of examining closely the relevant contact points
and most effective channels of reaching out to multiple targeted markets.

Furthermore, the aspects of measurability and evaluation of IMC

programmes are also not made explicit in this definition. Similar to an
earlier observation on the 4As definition, measuring and evaluating IMC
programmes are among the top concerns of marketing communication
14 Chapter 1

professionals, as evidenced by various studies conducted on IMC in the past

(e.g. Duncan & Everett 1993; Schultz & Kitchen 1997; Kitchen & Schultz
1999).

Conceptualisations of IMC by Nowak and Phelps (1994)

Nowak and Phelps did not propose a straightforward definition of IMC.
However, they sought to contribute by conceptualising the notion of IMC
through what they termed as three broad “conceptualisations”, which they
found in most practitioner-based literature on IMC (Nowak & Phelps 1994).
These conceptualisations are “one-voice” marketing communications,
“integrated” marketing communications (i.e. advertisements), and
“coordinated” marketing communications.

One-voice marketing communications is integration that creates “a clear and

consistent image, position, message, and/or theme across all marketing
communication disciplines or tools”. Integrated communications refers to
the creation of both a brand image and a behavioural response that emanate
directly from marketing communications materials such as advertisements.
Coordinated marketing communications associates “integrated” with the
concept of “coordination”. This refers to the coordination of all marketing
communications tools such as advertising, public relations and direct
marketing. The goal is to produce a holistic campaign to achieve synergy
that both develops awareness and builds brand image, at the same time
evoking a behavioural response from the target audiences.

While the conceptualisations presented by Nowak and Phelps provide some

explanations to the understanding of the IMC concept, they primarily dwell
on the most basic notions of the concept – that is, one voice, coordination
of marketing communication tools and eliciting behavioural responses – and
fail to transcend these fundamental ideas.

Definition by Don Schultz and Heidi Schultz (1998)

Schultz and Schultz (1998) proposed a new definition of IMC, which in
their opinion captures the current as well as the future scope of IMC as they
have seen it develop. This definition is based on the studies of IMC that
have been conducted in the past as well as on the experiences of
organisations that have implemented the IMC approach. Schultz and
Schultz (1998) defined IMC as follows:
 Towards a New Definition of Integrated Marketing Communication 15

IMC is a strategic business process used to plan, develop, execute, and

evaluate coordinated, measurable, persuasive brand communication
programs over time with consumers, customers, prospects, and other
targeted, relevant external and internal audiences.

Schultz and Schultz (1998, p. 18) claim that what differentiates this
definition from others is the focus it gives to the business process. This
definition seems to encompass the entire spectrum of concepts associated
with IMC. While it implies most, if not all, of the concepts that have been
cited previously in earlier definitions, it further enriches them with the
inclusion of concepts such as “business process”, “evaluation” and
“measurability”.

The use of a strategic approach provides a clear and consistent concept for
a given brand promoted by an organisation and minimises the risk of
constantly changing that brand concept, with the goal of building lasting
relationships with consumers. Schultz and Kitchen (2000, p. 5) further
comment on this definition by saying that:
This definition first focuses on strategy – a strategy of communication that
is clearly related to corporate mission, values, and needs, but relates equally
to brand mission, values, and needs. At both levels executives will need to
develop resonance and consonance in terms of brand identity.

This definition also expands the understanding of the term brand

communication programmes from its traditional view (i.e. advertising,
public relations, and so on) to all other contact points between the
organisation and its brands and the consumers or prospects.

Finally, the phrase “relevant internal and external audience” suggests that
IMC programmes seek to address all publics relevant to the organisation
and are not solely limited to marketing communication programmes focused
on consumers. IMC thinking believes in nurturing positive relationships
with, and addressing the needs of, all stakeholders, beginning with those
from within the organisation as well as all external audiences.

In a qualitative study (through in-depth interviews) conducted by the

researcher among CEOs and senior executives of ad agencies and marketing
directors of client organisations in Manila (Kliatchko 2002), he sought to
examine how IMC was understood, accepted and practised by the respondents
in their organisations. Among other issues and concerns addressed in the
study, the respondents were asked to react to the IMC definition of Schultz
and Schultz (1998). The author chose this definition for the study since it
was the most recent definition available during the time the research was
16 Chapter 1

conducted. Moreover, the Schultz and Schultz definition has also not been
used extensively in recent studies on IMC.

Findings of the study show that both agency and client respondents found
the definition correct and holistic. Most respondents particularly agreed
with the inclusion of such terms as “strategic”, “measurable” and “over
time”. However, almost all of the respondents claimed that they found the
definition too long, rather generic and unclear on the immediate benefits of
the IMC concept.

While the Schultz and Schultz (1998) definition appears to be more

comprehensive in scope than those previously posited by other scholars, one
drawback of this definition is that the immediate value, benefit, uniqueness
and specific difference of IMC are not immediately captured and made
evident. The generic and obscure phraseology risks the possibility of it
being easily interchanged or substituted by other notions or concepts once
the IMC label is detached from the definition itself.

A new IMC definition by Jerry Kliatchko

A review of the five IMC definitions cited suggests that the conceptualisation
of the IMC construct has developed considerably since its initial
formulation and articulation in the late 1980s. It has expanded and evolved
from the one-voice, coordinated, and consistent notion to a more strategic,
consumer-oriented and measurable approach to brand communication
planning. A summary of concepts introduced by the various authors, and
the emergence of their definitions over time, is shown in Table 1.
 Towards a New Definition of Integrated Marketing Communication 17

Table 1: Emergence of IMC definitions over time

Author/year Concepts introduced

American Association Coordination and consistency of messages and

of Advertising • communication channels
Agencies (4As)
(1989) (“one sight, one sound”)
Use of a variety of communication disciplines to
• work in synergy based on
a comprehensive plan
• IMC as a concept

Don Schultz (1991) • Inclusion of consumers, prospects

• Behavioural responses
• Nurture relationship and customer loyalty
• IMC as a process

Tom Duncan (1994) • Profitable relationships

Expanded audience scope from customers to
• other stakeholders

Nowak & Phelps Reinforced notions of consistency, coordination

(1994) • and behavioural response

Schultz & Schultz

(1998) • Strategic business process
• Expanded notion of brand communication
• Measurability
Specified more explicitly the multiple markets –
• inclusive of external and
internal audiences
18 Chapter 1

Figure 1: Convergence/divergence of IMC definitions

Cathey and Schumann (quoted in Anantachart 2001) claim that in their

analysis of IMC definitions, three main ideas seem to recur: (1) definitions
accentuating the audience; (2) definitions concentrating on message and
media integration; and (3) definitions revolving around the evaluation of
outcomes.